PDA

View Full Version : Tri Factor Theory


fuzzhead
2007-09-07, 22:44
The Tri-Factor Theory (or "Triple-S" theory) consists of doing an offensive maneuver using three principles:

*Speed
*Stealth
*Skill

No one factor is more valuable than another. If all three are done correctly and equally in the attack, then victory is almost guaranteed.



== Speed ==
*How fast your force moves, the faster your force is moving the harder it is for your enemy to attack or defend.

== Stealth ==
*How deceptive your force is during the maneuver. The more deceptive you are the more surprised the enemy will be

== Skill ==
*This is how effective your force is. The more skill your force has, the more damage you will inflict


Factors for Victory

You want to equalize all three factors, don't have more of a certain effect than the others:

*If you have more speed, then the enemy will retreat.
*If you have more stealth, then the enemy may split its forces.
*If you have more skill, then the enemy may have called for reinforcements.

Combining two factors with equal effect is usually devastating to the enemy:

*Having speed and stealth may confuse and immobilize the enemy.
*Having speed and skill may surprise and overwhelm the enemy.
*Having stealth and skill may confuse and disperse the enemy.


By having all three factors present and in equal terms the enemy will be surprised, confused, immobilized, and overwhelmed. So, in theory, you can annihilate an enemy.

carrack090
2007-09-11, 07:38
uh, yea, but in theory communisim works? lol the odds of pulling off a perfect op are like 220k-1, but hey, if u post a screen shot and pm it to me of it, my hat is off to you. well... more so, this mod is reason enough that its off.

Silvarius2000
2007-09-11, 07:53
Did you even read what he posted? Its a formula. not a l33t tactic.

carrack090
2007-09-11, 08:40
your right, i missed the point entirely, im sorry.

TY2D2
2007-09-14, 21:22
x = Victory... nuff sed.

I had x


No you cant have x.


Good post but I really don't know what it is telling me? I like the tips that are map specific more because they tell you HOW to deceive, how to get to places faster. And which places are best for annihilation. This is just kinda general. It works, but its not telling me when/where/how to implement it! And don't say everywhere.

Darkpowder
2007-10-21, 08:57
Map specific tactics are not going to help you become a better tactical player.
In armed assault my clan have a different scenario every couple of weeks. New situation, new threats and new map layout.

Personally i'm better off learning those tactics and -principles or formulas- like this which allow me to devise a unique approach to an attack or defence.

If you play with a good map-capturing SL, you will find that the map "tricks", hiding spots, approaches onto the target, places to lay mines etc are secondary to having good principles.

The PR Tournament is the place to go if you want to devise all those devious map-specific approaches. However if your formula, and basics of attack and defence aren't there your beautiful map tactic executed by "run and gun" or "sit and wait" players will be overwhelmed by any squad practicing basic fire-location, and fire-maneuver. Either PR or ArmA.

Masaq
2007-10-21, 21:21
The point is that there's some basic prinicples to the game:

Move quickly.
Only expose yourself when you have to.
When you have to fire, make sure you have the advantage.
Use cover and concealment.
Work with others to provide supporting fire.

etc etc


Ultimately no matter what map you're playing on, principles such as those can be utilised.

supahpingi
2007-11-03, 15:54
This is more like SF thingy.
Like SSD: Swift,Silent,Deadly!
i dunno wich but it belongs to a special forces unit.

Sabre_tooth_tigger
2007-12-07, 12:43
Sounds good to me

*Stealth
*Speed
*Skill


You cant flank the enemy if they know your doing it

Its a waste of time to flank if you dont do it quickly, the front will have moved

When you do blow your cover and attack, dont rush it and miss.
Wipe them all out or it wont have been worth it :)









In terms of commander, its nice to have people you can rely on.

Stealth - the idiots will probably be firing the blackhawk miniguns the whole way

Speed - the heli will crash and they'll have to respawn and take a boat

Skill - Opps, I forgot my officer kit. We cant get any kits or ammo :p

elemanoel
2008-01-23, 04:05
SAD, BUT RIGHT, yesterday it was all the way like that, and even earlier in the morning, a 12 year old kid whinig because he wanted to stay as a commander and tell everey one what to do (FOOLS ROAD AT TG)
CĀ“MON!!! LEARN!!
We can help doing the example (just like fuzz here)
CHEER UP GIRLS!!!
Thanks!
See ya in the field!

Sadist_Cain
2008-01-23, 07:04
I live and lead by this formula always :D reall good way to break it down aswell... helps to make decisions simple when under fire

MACDRE
2008-01-23, 23:40
One thing I would of added to this would have to be defense.

You can be fast, sneaky, and great, but if someone gets past you and rips the rug from under you while your at the flag, then your guys are likely to either have to rush back and retake it and defend (the enemy will likey have rally points near by if they are competent). Or sit tight on the uncappable flag while another squad tries to eliminate the threat on an entrenched enemy.

Whats good about reading Commander Tactics is that it can be implemented in almost any map. This Formula is something I try to use in maps like the forested Rebel settings, Bi Ming, 7 Gates, and several others. Good infantry based ones where your troops do exactly what you say, and if their good, you let the SL's improvise as needed. I love the times where your able shut out a map in less than an hour and a half, and your standing on a ridge with a firebase and a SOFLAM, directing your troops visually for the final assualt.

The key for being a SL with this formula is using hills, and LOS to your advantage. You want to get as close as you can without being seen. Make sure you explain what you are about to try, and then use hills, rocks, ridges, or other forms of cover to to move in close. If you spot a enemy during your approach, make sure to put an attack marker down in his general direction. You don't want to fire unless you can win, and if there is 12 guys out there, check your map and see if they are heading toward some friendly squad(s). If so, get commander to relay it to the appropriate squad. If not, let them pass still, but get in position on their six and take them out from behind while the commander get forces in place to defend. When you get to the flag, defend the best you can.

Sabre_tooth_tigger
2008-04-21, 21:11
Just had a thought that one word could represent all these factors and that is coordination. The kind of squad and squad mates who dont have to be asked to do things a certain way by their sl all the time could much more easily become this tri factor.
You could of course assume too much and step on each others toes instead of complimenting each other, so I reckon coordination is all these things in the OP

PFunk
2008-04-23, 05:09
Winning strategies are mostly conceptual. Great generals always make a new formula to break the status quo that has been practiced into a well oiled machinery of maneuvers (map specific tricks right?) and then they surprise the crap out of the enemy cause they do something they don't expect.

Its like the great saying goes -- no plan survives the enemy. You make a conceptual way to form a plan and then you have something better than a plan. You have an advantage. :-D

Not that I know anything really. NOOB ALERT!

Astromici
2008-12-08, 04:59
Wait a sec.. the way this is worded sounds like Sun-Tzu!

EDIT: I suppose I should post something useful too. These factors are not controlled by the commander, they are controlled by the relationship between the SL and the CO, wheareas the CO would know the squad's capabilities based on the squad's kit layout, position, and the outcome from past orders. The SL becuase the SL would know what the commander's objective is, plus how to place his troops in certain locations on certain methods from past experiences to get the mission done. The squad is the men in the fight, so THEY know where the position of the enemy and their own capabilities. The perfection of this relationship increases the efficiency, which is the speed and casulty number- of the mission. Remember, the squad leader is the Tactician and the commander is the Stratagist. The goal, of course, since PR is a game, is to win. But that's the overall goal, the stratagy achives the goal one way or another, and the tactic conforms to the stratagy for maximum effectiveness, for if the stratagy is to retreat, you're not going to do it by having your troops try to fight their way through enemy ranks to get out, are you?

NyteMyre
2008-12-08, 10:33
Factors for Victory

*If you have more speed, then you are a RUSHER
*If you have more stealth, then you are a CAMPER
*If you have more skill, then you are a HACKER

I always disliked the fact that suppression never really worked in online gaming. If I spot an enemy in CS/DoD/MoH for example, and I shoot at his direction, he may still pop up in your rain of bullets to get that skilled shot.

Even in PR with the suppression effect, people will still try to get the kill instead of changing position.

Astromici
2008-12-08, 21:19
Yeah, PR may be a realistic game, but it lacks things that would be in real life. Rank structure, perfect order, dicipline... and fear.

wuschel
2008-12-09, 08:41
Interesting. While certainly not a formula :), the three factors You have mentioned certainly have a great impact on the team performance in a round.

However, the most intriguing thing for me is the squad leader component. Victory is gained or lost by having a handfull of capable squad leaders, for these are most important element in the 3 level command pyramid that tactical components on the battlefield: They control the squads, which are the main assets of a team. Even if their skills are not superb, the simple fact that there is a active mediator in a squad already improves its communication and combat effectivity.

Without a commander, the organization on the battelfield is still managable with a hand full of good squad leaders. The best commander, however, has to resign before the weakest enemy when his squad leaders are incapable to play the their role. The CO role would be much more important if the battlefield would be larger and the number of players would rise, lets say, to 128 per side, and the squad size would be 8.

Personally, I find the squad leader role the most challenging role and the one with the steepest learning curve. You can play as a commander when You are a good communicator (simply ask Your capable squad leaders for their status and suggestions when You take the seat, and You already know what You should do ). As squad leader however, You can be a good communicator, but You have to be a tactician as well. On servers, our "work-horses" have to communicate and manage their squads, still have the big picture of the battle in their head, and do all those while beeing surpressed from two directions.

A hell of a job :)

PFunk
2008-12-09, 10:25
I was gonna comment on this til I realized it was very old and that I had already posted, when I was nub in fact!

However I stand by my comments. :D

Copper.8
2009-01-04, 15:13
It works, you just need a hypothetical situation and demonstrate it out in your head if you want proof.

But don't people just start thinking this'll win all your battles, your team needs to have those components in the first place.